Thanks to painstaking work by @franciscodeasis we know that we have near zero insight to the viruses sampled by the WIV after 2015. And their entire database is missing. We also have no access to their deep sequencing data which wouldn’t regularly be uploaded to databases.
To have a rigorous investigation, I believe we have to start pulling documents (included unfunded proposals) and communications from at least the beginning of 2017. To avoid authentication hell where no one will confirm the docs, the best approach might be FOIAs or subpoenas.
The question some scientists are wrestling with now:
Did the WIV go ahead with these experiments even though the proposal suggests they would be done by American scientists?
My answer: Why would they not? They had full access to the data, the expertise, and the infrastructure.
Research is very competitive. If there's a great idea, it will be pursued by multiple parties. In the eyes of the scientists generating the data (deep sequencing of pathogen samples), they likely see it as their right to do the experiments. Why let a collaborator take the glory?
We already know from the published literature and FOIA'ed documents that the WIV had made and studied chimeric SARSr-CoVs in their BSL2 and performed humanized animal experiments at BSL3. Despite observing enhanced characteristics in chimera, they proposed MORE of the same work.
After seeing up to 10,000x increased viral loads of the chimeric SARSr-CoVs in humanized mouse lungs, they said "Let's do this with MERS!"
I imagine some scientists are now praying that one of the most well-funded, prolific, cutting-edge labs in the world suddenly didn’t have the will, funding or ingenuity to follow through and expand on the SARSr-CoV engineering ideas they proposed in early 2018. #OriginsOfCovid
The more senior authors and signatories of @TheLancet letters and the Holmes et al. @CellCellPress paper should be approached for extended comment on the EcoHealth proposal.
Opinions ranged from “There are zero data to support a lab origin ‘notion’… the benefits [of the EcoHealth proposal] far, far outweigh the risk.”
To “This is doing everything that people say is going to cause a pandemic if you do it.”
“I find it really disappointing that one of the members of the joint WHO-China team… investigating this, are actually on this proposal, knew that this line of research was at least under consideration, and didn’t mention it all.” - @jbloom_lab
When a new SARSr-CoV with a new cleavage site insertion was causing an outbreak in Wuhan, how many of the scientists involved in the March 2018 DEFUSE proposal remembered their Wuhan colleagues had a roadmap for experimenting with new SARSr-CoVs with new cleavage site insertions?
This proposal to DARPA for $14.2 million, submitted in early 2018, was like the EcoHealth-WIV NIH proposal but on steroids.
Some scientists might argue that the proposal was not successful - DARPA did not fund it. But it doesn't mean it wasn't already ongoing even at the time of proposal.
When you see this level of detail, there's a good chance some preliminary work has been done.
Possible ways for a virus with an ancestral origin in bats to have made its way to Wuhan.
It's good that scientists are finding more bat viruses related to SARS2 in South China/SE Asia, but it still doesn't identify the route by which SARS2 arrived in Wuhan.
Yes, it took about a decade to track the closest bat virus relatives to SARS1.
But only 2 months from isolating the virus to find the proximal animal source in Guangzhou in 2003, and only days in 2004.
Despite less advanced technologies, Chinese investigators rapidly tracked down early cases, likely animal sources, and a well-substantiated path for SARS1 to have been introduced into human beings via the trade of infected animals. ayjchan.medium.com/a-response-to-…
Wish the @cnn@drsanjaygupta special was longer. Must have so much more valuable footage from each of the interviewees. Q&A with @PeterDaszak and Dr Ralph Baric was 👌 Thank you for having me on the show ☄️producer and team!
Take home messages were:
1. No definitive evidence for natural or lab origin - jury still out
2. No actual investigation of lab origin yet
3. Extensive SARS-related virus work done at low biosafety levels
4. Large pathogen database MIA
5. But natural origins still possible
Ancestral bat origin most likely according to most experts and WHO.
Problem is we don’t know how a bat virus evolved and transformed into the SARS2 virus that was detected in Wuhan in December 2019.
It’s difficult to reconcile this interview of the former DNI with the recent declassified summary by the IC. If there is compelling evidence of a lab origin (which I had heard of back in August) then why did the IC agencies largely not reach even low confidence conclusions?